Strengthening monitoring through multiscale governance: Interview with Petteri Vihervaara

Why multiscale governance matters

The demand for biodiversity data from governments, researchers, and the private sector is growing rapidly. However, existing national and thematic monitoring efforts often fall short due to fragmentation and varying capacities. “Countries are starting from very different situations,” Petteri explains, noting disparities in governance structures, thematic expertise, and available resources. Smaller countries, for instance, sometimes lack the staff or funding to cover all necessary functions, while larger ones may have complex, decentralised systems.

This diversity makes coordination both challenging and indispensable. A multiscale approach bridges these disparities by promoting shared solutions and capacity-building. As Petteri points out, “If one country has developed a good system, it makes sense to share that. Otherwise, we end up repeating the same work everywhere.”

Laying the groundwork for collaboration

Building a shared governance system across countries is no small feat. As Petteri explains, one of the biggest early hurdles was simply aligning on a common understanding of the objectives: “To align the mutual understanding of what we’re trying to accomplish has taken a lot of time and energy.”

This challenge is compounded by the fact that many partners are navigating unfamiliar territory. For instance, several national ministries involved had limited experience with Horizon Europe’s administrative and reporting processes. Establishing clear funding flows, from the European Commission down to national-level partners, required both technical expertise and continuous dialogue.

“This is being done for the first time,” Petteri notes. The novelty of the initiative has meant that time-consuming groundwork was needed, both to clarify roles and to build trust. Constant, transparent communication has been essential to ensure all participants understand the shared vision and how they can contribute within their own governance structures.

Building national coordination centres

One of the outcomes is the progressive establishment of national biodiversity monitoring coordination centres. These centres are designed to streamline monitoring efforts within countries and connect them more effectively across borders.

A key early insight was that many countries lacked even a clear picture of how much they invest in biodiversity monitoring. “This has been a good excuse for countries to go through their budget lines,” says Petteri, highlighting how simply identifying existing efforts is a critical first step.

The centres serve as central hubs that can coordinate monitoring activities, manage data flows, support training, and advise on priorities. In some cases, they’re helping countries reduce costly inefficiencies. In Finland, for example, producing a national biodiversity report once cost around €1 million per year—mainly due to the effort of re-compiling scattered data. “That’s clearly not sustainable,” Petteri says.

Sustained support is vital for these centres. Petteri highlights that historically, “long-term monitoring has often been tied to short-term projects.” Now, co-funding from national partners and the European Commission is providing the necessary stability to recruit dedicated national coordinators and facilitate more consistent data contributions. This is crucial for many countries to participate.

Fostering an inclusive network

Workshops organised by Biodiversa+ are fundamental to the initiative’s progress. What began as open discussions about priorities has evolved into focused sessions where countries exchange practical insights. “Now we have quite well-prepared countries sharing experiences on governance structures and data systems,” Petteri explains. These events facilitate progress, align approaches, and build momentum, with plans for a “European Biodiversity Monitoring Week” next year to further showcase achievements and attract new members.

For countries not yet involved, Petteri’s advice is simple: “Institutional backing is crucial.” Biodiversa+ primarily engages government bodies responsible for funding and steering biodiversity monitoring, rather than individual researchers. “Send a contact point who can connect with national networks,” he adds.

For now, key players such as forestry and agriculture ministries are not yet involved, despite their relevance to monitoring. Looking ahead, Petteri sees potential for a more inclusive approach, with expanded membership categories that could include individuals, research bodies, and private sector actors. “Anyone contributing to biodiversity monitoring should have a way to stay informed and engaged,” he says.

The role of EBOCC at the European level

At the European level, the envisioned European Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre (EBOCC) should fill a major gap. “There’s no EU-level institute with both the mandate and resources to lead biodiversity monitoring,” Petteri explains. While the European Environment Agency supports countries with data reporting, “it doesn’t actually carry out monitoring and simply doesn’t have the capacity.”

EBOCC’s role would likely include coordinating national efforts, managing diverse datasets, and navigating legal barriers around data ownership and access. “Sometimes you need lawyer expertise more than biodiversity expertise,” Petteri notes.

With a proposed €50 million annual budget, the centre could take the shape of a large institute or a streamlined core office that channels funds to national nodes and ensures efficient coordination. The pilot phase will help determine the best model. “Whatever form it takes, it must be built with strong involvement from member states,” Petteri insists, “so it reflects both European and national priorities and gives voice to all contributors.”

He also stresses that the proposed investment is modest compared to the value it would deliver. “€50 million a year is not much when you think of the returns,” he argues. “A single €40 million research call might fund many projects, but it won’t build lasting infrastructure.” In contrast, investing in shared monitoring capacity allows all countries to contribute open data and support collective action, providing “huge value for society and sustainability.”

What’s at stake

“Failure is not an option,” Petteri says simply. He acknowledges that full alignment from all countries may take time, so the initiative must begin with the most proactive ones. “It’s the same in other areas of European cooperation, like defence—you often start with a committed core, and others follow.”

In the short term, within the next three years, success would entail a “handful of countries demonstrating they’ve strengthened their biodiversity monitoring governance,” with an additional five to ten countries following suit. Looking further ahead, the aspiration is to build a community of 10 to 20 countries actively developing and supporting these systems together.

The ultimate goal is to create something that endures beyond the current partnership. “This is just the beginning,” Petteri concludes, estimating that “we’ll need at least another seven years to really embed it into European governance, to build a community mature enough to continue on its own.”

What’s taking shape is more than a project, it’s a shift in how biodiversity monitoring is organised across Europe. Success will depend on sustained political and financial commitment, but the groundwork is being laid. If it holds, this shift could finally give Europe the long-term infrastructure it needs to turn data into meaningful action.